If the inquirer still
perseveres in rejecting every thing supernatural, he must have recourse to
external grounds for the explanation of Christ’s reappearance, and deem it a
revival from apparent death, brought about by the use of natural means.

It may
be admitted, inasmuch as crucifixion was not immediately fatal, that one who had
endured its torture for several hours might be restored by careful medical aid;
although it certainly was not an easy thing to do, as the examples mentioned by Josephus794794 In
his autobiography, § 75. He had been sent, with a troop of Roman horse, to the
village of Tekoah, four or five hours distant, to reconnoitre. Jerome, living in
Bethlehem, writes of this village, “Thecoam viculum esse in monte situm et duodecim millibus ab
Jerosolymis separatum, quotidie oculis cernimus” (t. iv., pt. i., p. 882).
Returning from the village to Jerusalem, Josephus saw several prisoners hanging
on crosses, who must have been crucified in the interim, as he had not seen them
in going out. On arriving at camp, he begged of Titus the lives of three, and
had them at once taken down (after hanging, therefore, but a few hours), and
treated, medically, with the utmost care; yet but one out of the three survived.
(Cf. Bretschneider’s remarks on this account, Stud. u.. Krit., 1832, iii.; also,
Hug, Freiburg. Zeitschrift, No. vii., 148.) testify. But let us, without inquiring for other signs of death in the
case of Jesus, notice the following points. Before his crucifixion, he had
endured multiplied sufferings, both of soul and body; he had been scourged; he
was so worn out on the way to Golgotha that he could not carry his cross, and
even the Roman soldiers had pity on him; he was nailed to the cross by his hands
and feet; he had remained from noon till towards evening795795 A close computation of the hours
cannot be arrived at from the Evangelical accounts. It is hardly to be supposed
that even the disciples who were eye-witnesses were able, under the
circumstances, to note the precise time. in this painful
position, under the rays of a burning
426sun; he took leave of the world in the struggles of death;
his side was pierced796796 I make the following remarks with
reference to John, xix., 31, to guard against the interpolations placed in this
passage by a profane vulgarity, which reads John’s Gospel as it would a police
report. The suffringere crura was indeed an ignominious punishment, particularly
used as a capital punishment for slaves; but it certainly was not immediately
fatal. (After the hands were cut off, the legs broken, and the body maimed in
various ways, the criminals were thrust into a pit, still alive:
Κολοβώσαντες δὲ καὶ συντρίψαντες τὰ
σκέλη, ἔτι ζῶντας ἔῤῥιψαν εὔς τινα τάφρον.
Polyb., i., c. 80, § 13.) The death-blow was afterward given in some other way.
Hence (Ammian. Marcellin., Hist., xiv., 9) it is expressly added, “fractis cruribus,
occiduntur.” The soldiers, having completed the effractio crurum on the two
malefactors that were crucified with Jesus, either gave them the death blow or
permitted them, after being taken down, to perish slowly from their broken
limbs. But, as no signs of life could be seen in Jesus, they saw no necessity to
execute the command, which was given solely under the presupposition that
crucifixion could not kill so soon. Nor was this at all strange; all that was
demanded was that the crucifixion should have done its work effectually. They
deemed it enough, therefore, to thrust the lance into his side, either to assure
themselves that he was dead, or to give him the death-blow. It would have been a
bad manoeuvre, indeed, to do this as a mere pretence, with the intention to
save him. Although the word νύττειν may denote a slight wound, its meaning (as
denoting a severe wound) is fixed by the weapon employed; and, moreover, John
uses it as synonymous with ἐκκεντεῖν, v. 37. The wound could not have been a
small one, as Christ afterward called on the disciples to thrust their hands
into it. And there are other instances in which we read of the death-blow being
given by piercing the side with a lance; two martyrs, Marcus and Marcellianus,
had remained a day and a night tied to a stake, to which their feet were nailed,
jussit praefectus ambos, ubi stabant, lanceis per latera perforari (Acta Sanct.,
Jun., t. iii., f. 571). by the lance of a Roman soldier; and, after all this, he
remained two nights and a day in a fresh grave. Yet, without medical aid or
attendance, the same man walks about on a sudden among his disciples, apparently
in sound health and full of vital power! Had he appeared among them sick and
suffering, as he must have done had he been restored by natural means from
apparent death, such a sight could not have revived their sunken faith, or
become the foundation for all their hopes. A weak man would have reappeared,
subject to death like any other. But, on the contrary, he seemed to them so much
more like a glorified being that he had to give them sensible proofs of his
humanity. He appeared to them thenceforth as one over whom death had no power;
and, therefore, became a pledge that the life of man should conquer death and
enjoy forever a glorified existence.

Even if all this could be made to agree
with a restoration of Christ by natural means from apparent death, we should
have further to suppose either that his life was subsequently prolonged for some
time, or that he died soon after in consequence of his wounds and sufferings The
former supposition is a mere fancy; there is no possible ground for it in
history; the latter is contradicted by the facts of his reappearance; there was
no cause of death apparent. And the very fact of his dying would have destroyed
all the moral effect of his resurrection, which consisted solely in the
conviction wrought by it that he, as Messiah,
427had conquered death, and was no more
subject to its power. Moreover, if it be true that Christ’s sufferings caused
his death, he is chargeable with grossly deceiving the disciples to present his
body to them in a higher light, and thereby give an impulse to their faith which
it could not otherwise have obtained. And so that great fact which formed the
immovable basis of the disciples’ faith in Christ’s person and work, and in his
plan of salvation, on which rests the whole fabric of the Christian Church, must
have gained its high import from an actual deception on the part of Christ
himself, or at least from an intentional concealment of the truth!

Had the
Jewish opponents of the Gospel made use of this hypothesis to invalidate the
proof of Divinity which the disciples derived from Christ’s reappearance, and
circulated it freely, it would neither be matter of surprise nor ground of
suspicion. But the fact that they did not make use of any such hypothesis, but
employed any and every other means to invalidate the Christian faith, is a
powerful proof that there was nothing in the circumstances of Christ’s death to
favour such an explanation. Of a totally different character was the report, so
easily diffused,797797Matt.,
xxviii., 15. We cannot mistake the additions of tradition to the original facts.
Dial. c. Tryph. Jud., f. 335, ed. Colon, and the extracts by Eisenmenger, i.,
192. that the disciples had found means to remove the body from the
grave. The invention and circulation of such a report was most natural; the
empty grave was a proof that must be invalidated. But, on the other hand, there
is not a vestige of proof that the Jews, presupposing the accounts of Christ’s
reappearance to be true, ever reported that he had been revived from a merely
apparent death: on the contrary, the truth of those accounts wag the object of
attack from the very first. The opponents of Christianity declared that the
disciples either intentionally deceived others, or were themselves deceived; e.
g., Celsus, who made great use of the attacks of the Jews upon Christianity and
the fables they spread abroad concerning it. And in this connexion it was that
the accusation of stealing away the body was brought against the disciples; they
did it, it was said, to nullify the evidence of the corpse against their pretence798798 L.
c., Justin Mart.: “πλανῶσι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους λέγοντες ἐγηγέρθαι.” that Christ had risen and reappeared to them. Paul did not find it
necessary to prove that Christ had really died; this was taken for granted; his
task was to show that he had risen from the dead (1 Cor., xv.).799799 But
I must believe, contrary to some of the latest interpreters, that John (xix.,
34), as an eye-witness, meant to prove that Christ was really dead, from the
nature of the blood that flowed from the wound. Ver. 35 certainly refers to ver.
34, and not to ver. 36, 37. Although John, in these last verses, referred to the
Old Testament prophecy, it does not follow that he made it the seal of faith (v.
34), particularly for his readers, who were not such as to be led to faith from
arguments founded in Judaism. These verses are added to show that what had taken
place was conformed to a higher necessity. It appears, then, that John thought
it necessary to prove that Christ had really died. It does not follow, however,
that he had
in view any definite opponents who denied that fact. As he intended to testify
to the resurrection, it was necessary that he should testify to the death,
especially for readers who were not believers; in view of the well-known fact
that crucifixion, endured for a few hours, was not in itself always fatal. If he
had definite opponents in view, they were probably (corresponding to John’s
sphere of labour) heathens, and not Jews.

428

794 In
his autobiography, § 75. He had been sent, with a troop of Roman horse, to the
village of Tekoah, four or five hours distant, to reconnoitre. Jerome, living in
Bethlehem, writes of this village, “Thecoam viculum esse in monte situm et duodecim millibus ab
Jerosolymis separatum, quotidie oculis cernimus” (t. iv., pt. i., p. 882).
Returning from the village to Jerusalem, Josephus saw several prisoners hanging
on crosses, who must have been crucified in the interim, as he had not seen them
in going out. On arriving at camp, he begged of Titus the lives of three, and
had them at once taken down (after hanging, therefore, but a few hours), and
treated, medically, with the utmost care; yet but one out of the three survived.
(Cf. Bretschneider’s remarks on this account, Stud. u.. Krit., 1832, iii.; also,
Hug, Freiburg. Zeitschrift, No. vii., 148.)

795 A close computation of the hours
cannot be arrived at from the Evangelical accounts. It is hardly to be supposed
that even the disciples who were eye-witnesses were able, under the
circumstances, to note the precise time.

796 I make the following remarks with
reference to John, xix., 31, to guard against the interpolations placed in this
passage by a profane vulgarity, which reads John’s Gospel as it would a police
report. The suffringere crura was indeed an ignominious punishment, particularly
used as a capital punishment for slaves; but it certainly was not immediately
fatal. (After the hands were cut off, the legs broken, and the body maimed in
various ways, the criminals were thrust into a pit, still alive:
Κολοβώσαντες δὲ καὶ συντρίψαντες τὰ
σκέλη, ἔτι ζῶντας ἔῤῥιψαν εὔς τινα τάφρον.
Polyb., i., c. 80, § 13.) The death-blow was afterward given in some other way.
Hence (Ammian. Marcellin., Hist., xiv., 9) it is expressly added, “fractis cruribus,
occiduntur.” The soldiers, having completed the effractio crurum on the two
malefactors that were crucified with Jesus, either gave them the death blow or
permitted them, after being taken down, to perish slowly from their broken
limbs. But, as no signs of life could be seen in Jesus, they saw no necessity to
execute the command, which was given solely under the presupposition that
crucifixion could not kill so soon. Nor was this at all strange; all that was
demanded was that the crucifixion should have done its work effectually. They
deemed it enough, therefore, to thrust the lance into his side, either to assure
themselves that he was dead, or to give him the death-blow. It would have been a
bad manoeuvre, indeed, to do this as a mere pretence, with the intention to
save him. Although the word νύττειν may denote a slight wound, its meaning (as
denoting a severe wound) is fixed by the weapon employed; and, moreover, John
uses it as synonymous with ἐκκεντεῖν, v. 37. The wound could not have been a
small one, as Christ afterward called on the disciples to thrust their hands
into it. And there are other instances in which we read of the death-blow being
given by piercing the side with a lance; two martyrs, Marcus and Marcellianus,
had remained a day and a night tied to a stake, to which their feet were nailed,
jussit praefectus ambos, ubi stabant, lanceis per latera perforari (Acta Sanct.,
Jun., t. iii., f. 571).

797Matt.,
xxviii., 15. We cannot mistake the additions of tradition to the original facts.
Dial. c. Tryph. Jud., f. 335, ed. Colon, and the extracts by Eisenmenger, i.,
192.

799 But
I must believe, contrary to some of the latest interpreters, that John (xix.,
34), as an eye-witness, meant to prove that Christ was really dead, from the
nature of the blood that flowed from the wound. Ver. 35 certainly refers to ver.
34, and not to ver. 36, 37. Although John, in these last verses, referred to the
Old Testament prophecy, it does not follow that he made it the seal of faith (v.
34), particularly for his readers, who were not such as to be led to faith from
arguments founded in Judaism. These verses are added to show that what had taken
place was conformed to a higher necessity. It appears, then, that John thought
it necessary to prove that Christ had really died. It does not follow, however,
that he had
in view any definite opponents who denied that fact. As he intended to testify
to the resurrection, it was necessary that he should testify to the death,
especially for readers who were not believers; in view of the well-known fact
that crucifixion, endured for a few hours, was not in itself always fatal. If he
had definite opponents in view, they were probably (corresponding to John’s
sphere of labour) heathens, and not Jews.